1

EXECUTIVE DECISION: REFORMING GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE IN

MACOMB COUNTY, MICHIGAN

by

Marlon I. Brown

Approved: __________________________________________________________ Bernard L. Dworsky, M.A. Assistant Professor, School of Urban Affairs & Public Policy Chairperson of Analytical Paper Committee Approved: __________________________________________________________ Robert Warren, Ph.D. Professor, School of Urban Affairs & Public Policy Member of Analytical Paper Committee Approved: __________________________________________________________ Edward J. O’Donnell, AICP, M.Ed. Policy Scientist & Instructor, School of Urban Affairs & Public Policy Member of Analytical Paper Committee Approved: __________________________________________________________ James P. Flynn, Ed.D. Assistant Professor, School of Urban Affairs & Public Policy

Director of MPA Program

2

THE UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE

EXECUTIVE DECISION: REFORMING GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE IN

MACOMB COUNTY, MICHIGAN

by

MARLON I. BROWN

An Analytical Paper Submitted to the Public Management Faculty of the School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of Master of Public Administration

Newark, Delaware May 2008

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are several individuals who have supported me, and this research project. I would

like to take this opportunity to offer my heartfelt gratitude and appreciation.

I would like to thank all the members of my AP committee, especially Mr. Bernard

Dworsky who agreed to serve as the chair of my committee.

I would like to thank Mr. Phil Frame, Director of the Macomb County Office of Public

Affairs, for assisting me with obtaining various county documents.

I would like to thank Macomb County Commissioner, Andrey Duzyj, for his insight and

assistance with this project.

I would like to thank Ms. Nancy Hewat and Mr. Jeffrey Padden, of Public Policy Associates, Inc. for their assistance with obtaining the “County Executive Research Project”

conducted by their firm.

I would like to thank my mother, Claudria Brown, my grandmother, Myrtle Hearns, and

my fiancé, Margaret Tindal, for their love and encouragement of me throughout graduate school.

To these and many others who have sustained me with their thoughts, well wishes, and

prayers. I am forever grateful.

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface …………………………………………………………………………………………... 6

Abstract Methodology Personal Significance

Introduction: The Transition of County Governance …………………….……………………... 9 Chapter One: An Overview of Macomb County ……………………………………………… 13 County Government Government Finances Is There Need for Reform? Chapter Two: Options for Reform …………………………………………………………….. 21 The Commission Form The Commission-Administrator/Manager Form The County Executive Form (Elected) Commission Size – Large or Small Evaluations and Applications Chapter Three: Getting There – The Environment for Reform ……………………………….. 34 The Legal Context Bay County Oakland County Wayne County Macomb County The Political Context The Institutional Context Chapter Four: Putting it Together – Findings and Conclusions ………………………………. 54 Research Question #1 Research Question #2 Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………………… 61 Future Research ………………………………………………………………………………... 63 Afterword ………………………………………………………………………………………. 66 Works Cited ……………………………………………………………………………………. 67 Appendices ………...…………………………………………………………………………… 69 Appendix A – Process for pursuing county home rule

5

INDEX OF TABLES AND CHARTS Table 2-1: Comparing County Managers, CAOs and Admin. Assts. …………………………. 33 Chart 3-1: Form of Government in Michigan’s 83 Counties ………………………………….. 35 Table 3-1: Bay County 1978 Ballot Measure …………………………………………………. 37 Table 3-2: Oakland County 1974 Ballot Measure …………………………………………….. 38 Table 3-3: Wayne County 1981 Ballot Measure ……………………………………………… 39 Table 3-4: Macomb County 1974 Ballot Advisory Question …………………………………. 41 Table 3-5: Macomb County 1986 Ballot Measure ……………………………………………. 42 Table 3-6: Profiles of County Case Studies …………………………………………………… 53 Chart 4-1: Government Form for Counties with 500,000 – 999,999 Residents ………………. 55 Table 4-1: Government Forms in Counties with 700,000 – 900,000 Residents ………………. 60

6

PREFACE Abstract

The Analytical Paper (AP) is the capstone writing requirement for Master’s level studies

at the University of Delaware School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy. The purpose is to

provide the student an opportunity to conduct an in depth analysis of a policy, problem, issue, or

an organization of their choosing. The AP process is structured to be a study of secondary

research related to the topic. Subsequently, the paper draws on a variety of resources that

integrate the totality of the student’s graduate study.

In light of the ongoing discussions and efforts to create an elected executive in Macomb

County, Michigan, this Analytical Paper examines the county’s current government form and

structure. Subsequently, this paper entertains the notion of government reform and conducts an

analysis of the various issues, arguments, and processes that shape this transition in Michigan’s

third largest county.

As a framework for the paper, there are two essential research questions:

1. Should Macomb County adopt the county executive form of government (as opposed to

another form)?

2. Given the current legal, political, and institutional environment how should Macomb

County proceed with the reorganization of its government?

7

In order to answer these questions the AP looks at county government structure in

general, and assesses its relevance and application to Macomb County. In addition to this, the

paper draws on the experiences of other counties such as Wayne, Oakland, and Bay (three

Michigan counties that have an elected executive). From these cases and other considerations,

the paper seeks to provide recommendations as to how Macomb County may move forward.

Methodology

The topic of this Analytical Paper is more theoretical in that it examines government

from an institutional perspective. Taking this into account, the approach of this paper is more

qualitative than quantitative. The components of my methodology include:

♦ Literature Review of materials concerning county government (forms and structures)

both generally and as it relates to the state of Michigan.

♦ Case Studies and subsequent analysis of the experiences in other Michigan Counties.

♦ Self Study of the issues and arguments relevant to Macomb County.

By utilizing these research tools, criteria are established for evaluating the county’s path

forward. The financial, structural/institutional, legal, political, and social components of this

issue are incorporated into the framework, and from this, a set of recommendations is provided.

This methodology is purposed to produce an in-depth look into this issue, while presenting a fair

and balanced approach for the future.

8

Personal Significance

While the AP is academic in nature, it allows students to pursue a topic that has personal

meaning to their studies and their post-graduate lives. I have always been fascinated by

governments, their institutions, and their formal and informal structures. My background in

political science fostered a great interest in how governments function, and why they function in

a particular manner. Consequently, I wanted to apply this interest to my current studies of Public

Administration.

I embarked on this topic because the literature concerning the role and function of county

government is very limited. Most scholars focus on the federal, state, or local level, while little

attention is given to the county level. Even in the course of my own personal research, I have

exhausted many of the resources available to me concerning county government. As a personal

challenge I felt it necessary to add to this body of work.

Finally, this project is meaningful to me because it concerns the community in which I

grew up. Like many others, I have a deep sense of pride in my home state, and I love my

community. I am genuinely concerned about the future of Michigan, and this project is one that

I hope will provide some benefit to my local area. My sole desire for going into public service is

the longing to use my gifts and talents for the betterment of mankind and to be a “man for

others.” I pray this project is merely the beginning of a lifetime of service.

9

INTRODUCTION The Transition of County Governance

A county is a level of government that exists below the state and above municipalities,

townships, and villages. Including city/county consolidations and the District of Columbia, there

are 3,066 counties in the United States. Forty-eight states have fully operational county

governments. The two remaining states, Rhode Island and Connecticut, have counties, but they

are merely geographic regions that do not have functioning governments. Additionally, Alaska

refers to its counties as boroughs, while Louisiana refers to its counties as parishes.1

Counties initially existed as an administrative arm of the state, performing duties such as

property maintenance, record keeping, road maintenance, and judicial/electoral administration.

The significant growth of counties over time, has shifted their responsibilities to include

economic development, social welfare, planning and zoning, and other forms of service

provision. This is further evidenced by the fact that most county expenditures were related to

public welfare/health (64% in FY98-99) and education (13.2% in FY98-99).2

Counties also vary in geographic size and population. The smallest U.S. county

geographically is Arlington County, VA, which consists of 26 square miles, while the largest is

North Slope, Alaska, which is 87,860 square miles. By contrast the smallest county in

population is Loving County Texas, with 67 residents, while Los Angeles County, CA has the

most residents at 9,519,338.3

1 National Association of Counties. “Overview of County Government.” – Accessed at http://www.naco.org/Content/NavigationMenu/About_Counties/County_Government/CountyOverview.pdf 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid.

10

Even at their origin, counties maintained their function as an administrative arm of a

higher level of government. Counties can be traced back approximately 1,000 years to the

English shires, which were the localized districts that the king would use to divide and organize

the country. These districts were purposed to maintain the power of the monarch even in areas

that were distant from the throne itself.4

At the helm of each shire was an earl. This office was appointed by the king and was

typically a landowner in the shire. The basic responsibility of the earl was to organize and

command an armed force for each shire. This military unit was specifically at the service of the

monarch. In addition to the earl, there was also a shire court, which held judicial and legislative

power. The leader of the shire court was the shire-reeve, precursor to the modern-day office of

sheriff. While the shire-reeve presided over most court proceedings, the local bishop would

assume that duty concerning matters of the church. Eventually the term shire was replaced by

the French word comté, or the jurisdiction of a count. From this derived the English term

county.5

In 1634, the first American county government was established in James City, VA.

However, from the beginning, American counties were differentiated on the basis of geographic

location and local needs. The north boasted numerous villages, towns, and cities, while in the

south the county was the main form of local government. Consequentially, the counties in the

south performed many of the responsibilities that municipalities performed in the north.6

As counties grew in population, their responsibilities as a government entity began to

expand. In tandem with this was the desire to reform county government. Among the reforms

4 National Association of Counties. “The History of County Government.” – Accessed at http://www.naco.org/Template.cfm?Section=History_of_County_Government&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=14268 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid.

11

were the adoption of home rule and the increased professionalism of county government. Home

rule meant that counties would assume more authority from the state and function more

effectively as a local government. Los Angeles County became the first American county with a

home rule charter in 1913. The other reform, professionalism in county government, was

achieved by creating a county manager or county administrator, which essentially established a

separate level of administration to bridge the bureaucracy and the county legislature. This was

first adopted in 1927, by Iredell County, North Carolina.7

In addition to these reforms, home rule counties were free to revise the structures and

relationships that influenced county government. Counties sought to abandon the original

commission form of county government, and replace it with a model that filled the management

gap in government administration. To achieve this, many counties reverted to the appointed

manager or administrator, yet other counties instead opted to create an elected executive to

manage the county. The separation of the administrative and legislative functions of government

marked a new frontier for American counties.

This analytical paper explores county government reform in a modern and particularly

relevant context. As Macomb County, Michigan continues to grow and become more diverse in

its population, many have called for the reform of its government, specifically proposing the

adoption of an elected county executive. While this issue is not a new one for the county, it has

resurfaced in the public arena, and Macomb County is now at an important crossroad.

On May 6th, 2008, the voters of Macomb County will decide if their government needs

reform, and what the reform should look like. In general there are three options. The first is

maintaining the status quo by keeping the commission form. The second would be adopting the

7 Ibid.

12

optional unified form of government, which would simply implant an elected executive into the

current form. The final option would be adopting home rule for the county, which could yield a

complete overhaul and reorganization of county government. This last option is the measure that

will be placed on the ballot.

Throughout the forthcoming pages these issues will be discussed, along with their

implications for the future of Macomb County. The following questions will also be considered:

given the current legal, political, and institutional environment of the county, which option for

reform should be adopted? Secondly, if reform is to take place, how should the county proceed

with the reorganization of its government? Though this paper is purposed to merely provide

some insights and observations to the public debate, the voters will render the ultimate answer to

these questions. This is the most appropriate way to resolve the debate. Indeed, democracy is

most accurately depicted in this very process and most eloquently described in the notion of

government by the people.

13

CHAPTER ONE An Overview of Macomb County

Macomb County, Michigan is a suburban county of metropolitan Detroit. The county was

founded on January 15, 1818 and was named after U.S. Army Commander, Alexander Macomb,

Jr. It is the third largest county (by population) in the state of Michigan. The population after

the 2000 census was just over 788,000, and is currently estimated to be 836,983. The county has

27 municipalities, which include three of the ten largest communities in the state. The city of

Warren is the third largest city (138,247), the city of Sterling Heights is the sixth largest city

(124,471), and the city of Clinton Township is the tenth largest city (95,648).8 Macomb is the

60th largest county in the United States.

While the population of the county is fairly significant, the total area of the county makes it

the ninth smallest in the state. Macomb County has an area of 482 square miles of land and 31

miles of shoreline along Lake St. Clair, which is situated along the eastern portion of the county.

The rest of the county is bordered by land.9 To the south is Wayne County (the largest county in

the state and the county which encompasses the city of Detroit), to the west is Oakland County

(the second largest county and also the wealthiest county in the state), while Lapeer County is to

the Northwest, and St. Clair County is to the Northeast.

The earliest settlers of Macomb County included the French who came to the area to

profit from fur trading, as well as the English, and later the Germans and the Belgians. During

the last decade of the 18th century Christian Clemens came to the area and settled at a site known

8 Macomb County Census Information – Accessed at http://www.macombcountymi.gov/census.htm 9 Macomb County Statistics – Accessed at http://www.macombcountymi.gov/statistics.htm

14

as High Banks, which later became the Village of Mount Clemens and eventually the seat of

Macomb County.

The growth of the county can be traced to two key developments. The first was the

construction of Selfridge Field (Selfridge Air Force Base) in 1917. The second was the

beginning of suburbanization. The population of the county doubled between 1920 and 1930,

climbing from 38,103 to 77,146. Subsequently, the largest population boom occurred between

1950 and 1970 when the county increased by 440,000 residents.10 These factors greatly

contributed to the economic, social, and cultural makeup of the area.

Regarding such demographics, the 2000 census reported that 91.96% of the county

residents are White, 2.69% are Black, 2.12% are Asian, 0.31% are American Indian, and 2.92%

are registered as other. The median age of the county is 37 with 24.10% under the age of 18, 8%

between the ages of 18 and 24, 31.5% between the ages of 25 and 44, 22.8% between the ages of

45 and 64, and 13.7% over the age of 65. In terms of educational attainment for people over 25

years of age, 17% have no high school diploma, 33% have a high school diploma, 25% have

some college education, 20% have a bachelor’s or associates degree, and approximately 6% have

an advanced degree.11 In addition to this, the median income for a household was $52,102, with

a per capita income of $24,446. Accordingly, the average home value is $139,200 and it is

estimated that about 5.6% of the population is below the poverty line.12

These statistics do provide an accurate picture of Macomb County, however, the

demographics are rapidly changing. Since 2000, the county has grown by almost 49,000

residents and is likely to continue growing through 2010. Much of this growth is a result of the

10 Brief History of Macomb County – Accessed at http://www.macombcountymi.gov/history.htm 11 Macomb County Profile – Accessed at http://www.macombcountymi.gov/Community_Profiles/pdfs/Macombcounty/MacombCounty.pdf 12 Macomb County Statistics

15

continuous flight from Detroit, which has caused the county to become more diverse. Cities like

Warren and Mount Clemens are experiencing significant growth in minority communities.

Moreover, there are also increases in middle-eastern residents, due to southeastern Michigan’s

strong Arab community. While these factors do contribute to the growth of the county, it must

also be noted that due to Michigan’s economic struggles, the county does face some challenges

in sustaining this growth in the light of many businesses and residents that are leaving the state.

Similar to the state of Michigan, manufacturing is among the leading industries of Macomb

County, with 94 industrial parks, 8 community hospitals, and the Community College and

University Center. Roughly 36% of industrial workers are in services, with 29% in

manufacturing, 19% in retail trade, and 6% in finance, insurance or real estate. The top ten

employers in Macomb County include General Motors (1), Daimler Chrysler Corporation (2),

and Ford Motor Company (3), five health care employers, General Dynamics (7) and Macomb

County Community College (10).13 This list alone employs close to 49,000 people. As a final

point, it should be noted that 95% of all businesses in the county employ less than 50 people.

This reflects the county’s strong reliance on the small business community as well.14

As one of three counties comprising metropolitan Detroit, and one of several counties

encompassing southeastern Michigan, Macomb County has a very expansive highway and road

system. The county is serviced by two interstates (I-696 & I-94), which connect it to the rest of

the state, the nation, and to Canada. Access to I-75, the state’s major interstate highway, is

provided through the previously mentioned highways and several state roads. The county, in

13 Macomb County Profile 14 Macomb County Statistics

16

addition to the local municipalities, maintain the other roads. County rail service is primarily

industrial and provided by Conrail and Grand Trunk Western railroads.15

County Government Macomb County is governed by a 26-member board of commissioners, which serves as the

legislative, administrative, and policy-making body for the county. State law dictates the

responsibilities of the board, which entail oversight of the $473 million operating budget, and

limited authority to make laws or ordinances. The board’s additional responsibilities include

administrating programs mandated by the federal and state government, establishing and

reviewing county programs and services.

The board has a total of nine standing committees, which include Budget, Community

Services, Finance, Health Services, Justice & Public Safety, Legislative & Administration

Services, Operational Services, Personnel, Planning & Economic Development, and Senior

Citizen Services.16

The board’s political composition consists of 18 Democrats and 8 Republicans. The

Democratic stronghold is primarily in the southern portion of the county with a few exceptions.

The chairman of the board is currently Commissioner William A. Crouchman who represents

District 23 (St. Clair Shores & Lake Township). Chairman Crouchman is relatively new to his

position, having been elected as chairman in January of 2007. Though the Democratic Party

controls the board, there was no party consensus concerning who the chairman would be. As a

result, Crouchman was elected with a bi-partisan coalition. Because the county has no elected or

appointed chief executive, the chair of the board of commissioners informally represents the

15 Macomb County Profile 16 2007 Macomb County Annual Report – Accessed at http://www.macombcountymi.gov/publicAffairs/pdf/anualreport2007.pdf

17

county and serves as a central political figure. However, the power of the board chairman is

fairly limited, given the fact that the full board has the final authority over decision making in the

county.

In addition to the aforementioned responsibilities, the county government also operates the

county jail, the major local courts, keeps records such as deed or mortgages, maintains rural

roads and assists the state in providing various social services. The other elected officials of the

county are Carmella Sabaugh, the Clerk/Register of Deeds, Anthony V. Marrocco, the Public

Works Commissioner, Eric Smith, the Prosecuting Attorney, Ted Wahby, the Treasurer, and

Mark Hackel, the County Sheriff.17 The county is currently undergoing and effort to move to a

County Executive form of government, through the adoption of a home rule charter. This paper

seeks to further expound upon this and other options of county government reform.

Overall, the government of Macomb County is very effective and innovative. For the 25th

consecutive year, Macomb has received more Achievement Awards than any other county in the

state of Michigan. These awards are annually conferred by the National Association of Counties

for unique and innovative county programs and services. These awards give Macomb County

national recognition and encourage other counties to replicate its successful programs.18

Government Finances Macomb County is known for it financial responsibility. It offers the lowest tax base in the

metropolitan Detroit region. Currently, eleven cents (4.2 mills) of every property tax dollar goes

toward the support of county services. In addition to this, Macomb County has a Triple-A

(AAA) credit rating from both Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s. This is the highest possible

credit rating and Macomb is one of 34 counties in the U.S. to achieve this rating. 17 Macomb County Elected Officials – Access at http://www.macombcountymi.gov/electedofficials.htm 18 2007 Macomb County Annual Report

18

The general governmental revenues have risen steadily in the past five years. In 2001,

revenues were in excess of $450 million; in 2002 they were over $524 million; in 2003, over

$538 million; in 2004, over $560 million, and in 2005, they were over $573 million.19 In 2006,

the budgeted revenues totaled $449 million with 31.2% coming from mental health,20 28.1%

from property taxes, 15.7% coming from fees, 13.9% from the State and Federal governments

(grants), 5.2% coming from contributions, and the remainder coming fro reimbursements, cost

allocation, fines, licenses and permits.21

By contrast, the general expenditures have also risen steadily over the past five years. In

2001, the expenditures were in excess of $440 million; in 2002, over $480 million; in 2003, over

$486 million; in 2004, over $521 million; and in 2005, over $547 million.22 In 2006, the

budgeted revenues totaled $449 million, with 33.1% going toward mental health, 18% going

toward general government, 16.1% going toward human services, 14.3% going toward public

safety, 9.1% going toward judicial, 6.1% going toward health services, 1.6% going toward non-

department expenses, and the remaining expenditures going toward parks, legislative, and the

county library.23 Subsequently, the 2007 Budget indicates that the total budget in 2006 was over

$456 million, and the total budget in 2007 is just over $476 million.24

Since 2005 there has been a dramatic shift in budget expenditures partially due to the

state economy. Michigan’s economy is currently one of the worst in the nation, which has led to

cuts in past budgets. This has definitely caused a significant drop in state revenue sharing, which

19 Figures obtained from the 2005 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report obtained at http://www.macombcountymi.gov/Finance/reports.htm 20 Mental health revenues come from the following categories: State and Federal, Fees, 100% State Funded, Federal Title XX, and Grants from the State Department of Public Health. 21 2006 Macomb County Annual Report 22 Figures obtained from the 2005 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report obtained at http://www.macombcountymi.gov/Finance/reports.htm 23 2006 Macomb County Annual Report 24 2007 Macomb County Annual Report

19

can alter or change a county or municipal budget. Aside from 2006 and 2007, the expenditures

and revenues for the county have risen steadily, and the county has consistently operated on a

balanced budget or even a surplus in cases.

Though Macomb County manages its finances fairly well, there will be many challenges

in the coming years. Discussions around the possibility of creating a county executive have

positive and negative financial implications. Outside of this, Macomb is one of the fastest

growing counties in the state. While this does provide a larger tax base, it also provides a greater

demand on county services. Moreover, with such a low tax rate, the county may have to find

alternative sources of revenue to accommodate the booming population. With the county already

spending most of its budget on mental health, general government, human services, and public

safety respectively, there will obviously need to be changes in future budgets to continue the

level of service that county residents are accustomed to, while maintaining a low tax rate.

Is there Need for Reform? The question of whether or not Macomb County needs to undergo a reform in its

government structure is central to the discussions on a county executive. Proponents of a county

executive cite the current structural inadequacies as the central reason for initializing reform. On

the other hand, the opponents of a county executive cite the efficiency and effectiveness of the

current system as a reason to forgo any type of reform. While the two sides are completely

polarized, there is some truth to both arguments. From this one can conclude that any reform

must substantially improve the existing structure in order to be worth the change. In other

words, the intrinsic value and benefit of reform must outweigh the costs incurred from

implementing such reform. Though the question of the need for reform is not explicitly stated in

20

the research question, it is nonetheless an underlying question, which warrants attention.

Consequently, this question shall also be examined in the forthcoming pages.

21

CHAPTER TWO Options for Reform

A discussion of county government reform cannot take place without evaluating the

various ways in which county government can be organized. The most basic and traditional type

of county government is the commission form. However, as counties became more populated

and urbanized, county governments began resembling municipal governments. Counties had to

provide more services to residents, and as a result reorganized their existing governments to

better adapt to their new roles. These changes included the adoption of the county

administrator/manager form, and the county executive form of government. Macomb County

resembles many other urbanized counties, which abandoned the commission form – a seemingly

archaic form of government – in search of a form that provided a greater sense of

professionalism and accountability to county government. This chapter shall undertake an

examination of each form in order to better assess its application to Macomb County.

The Commission Form

The first and oldest form of county government is the commission form. Under this

structure there is a fusion of legislative and executive power in an elected county council or

commission. This body has policy and administrative oversight of the county in addition to

adopting the county budget, passing ordinances and other legislation, appointing the advisory

boards and commissions of the county, and appointing or serving as heads and directors of the

various executive departments of the county. Generally county commissions have the following

22

powers:25 The power to enact ordinances similar in many respects to the ordinances enacted by

city councils

• The power to review budget requests, appropriate funds, establish county tax levies (up to

state tax limits), and incur debt (however, the incurrence of debt usually takes approval of

the voters after action by the county board)

• The power to hear reports from county officers and exercise oversight of administration

It is important to note that in Michigan counties the commissioners do not serve as heads

of any executive departments. The state constitution mandates the election of certain positions

such as sheriff, clerk, treasurer, register of deeds and a prosecuting attorney. Macomb County

combines the office of clerk and register of deeds, and also elects a public works commissioner.

The county commission appoints the remaining department heads. Variations like this often

cause the commission form to be referred to as the plural executive form, because separately

elected row officials exercise executive functions of government.

Herbert Sydney Duncombe gives a thorough analysis of the advantages and

disadvantages of various forms of county government. In his research he sites four main

advantages of the commission form of government. First of all, this structure has longevity. It is

the traditional form of county government, and most counties have existed under this form at one

point. Secondly, the commission form may be seen as the most democratic. The administration

of government is actually closest to the people through the system of elected county

commissioners and certain department heads. Thirdly, Duncombe argues that the plural

executive form provides a system of checks and balances by not allowing executive authority to

25 Duncombe, Pg.56

23

be dispersed among several individuals. In this manner, there is less likelihood of a totally

corrupt government. Finally, he argues that the commission form of government provides

unified administration and policy making because the legislative and executive functions of

government are fused into one branch. Though, there may be conflicts among commission

members, there are no conflicts among branches of government.26

In contrast to these points, the disadvantages are somewhat significant. Duncombe’s first

argument is that the commission form is antiquated and cannot adequately respond to the

complexities of government in the modern era. Secondly, the commission form lacks a chief

executive officer, which can lead to inefficiency in government. Though commissions have a

president or chairman, this figure still lacks the executive power and cannot advance policy or

decisions without the consent of the county legislative body. Thirdly, commissioners are usually

part-time elected officials, which could mean a lack of professionalism in government. In an age

of technology, instant communication, and an increased demand of government services, the

commission form does not provided the professional management that may be needed.

Duncombe also argues that the plurality of executive officials leads to an uninformed citizenry.

Voters often don’t know who does what, and many of these officials run for office uncontested.

This may put the concentration of power in a political party or a special interest group.27

Finally, the previous argument leads to the conclusion that the commission form lacks

accountability. With legislative and executive power being vested in a commission, there is no

single person who can be held accountable for government administration.28 In support of the

accountability argument, Victor DeSantis and Tari Renner contend that “the lack of a strong

unified position with executive responsibility for the operations of the entire county can create 26 Duncombe, Pg. 42 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid.

24

tremendous fragmentation of the system, promoting chaos, inefficiency, and little centralized

pubic accountability.”29 Furthermore, Russel Maddox and Robert Funquay make a similar point.

“One outstanding weakness of county government in general is the absence of a chief executive.

There are far too many independent ‘executives’ and department heads whose activities are

subject to no effective supervision and coordination.”30

In order to compensate for these disadvantages, many counties have attempted to retain

the commission form while making some minor modifications. In some areas, the chairman of

the county board is given the informal ability to make administrative decisions, while the full

commission still makes legislative and policy oriented decision.31 This particular change is more

practical when the chairman has a great deal of experience or seniority and the board may be

smaller in number. Another modification to the commission form is the appointment of a county

administrative assistant.32 This position aids the commission in preparing budgets, forming

agendas, advising commissioners, and following up on decisions made by the commission.

Again, this position may be suited to a smaller commission considering that most large

commissions already have a staff that assists with these tasks. While these two modifications

may be applicable in other cases, they do not seem appropriate for Macomb County.

The Commission-Administrator/Manager Form One slight departure from the commission form is the commission-administrator form of

government. Under this form the county commission hires or appoints an administrator to

oversee the executive functions of government and assist with budget preparation and the

implementation of county policies. This form of government mirrors the city manager form; 29 Berman, Pg. 22 30 Duncombe, Pg. 40 31 Duncombe, Pg. 42 32 Duncombe, Pg. 43

25

however, most county managers do not have powers that are comparable to that of a city

manager.33 Depending on the county, this position may be called a county administrator, county

manager, chief administrative officer, administrative assistant, assistant to the county board

chairman, or executive director. For our purposes the role shall be referred to as the county

administrator or manager.

There are three general types within this form of government. The first is the

commission-manager plan. Under this plan, the county manager has the most extensive powers.

This person is appointed by the board, serves at the pleasure of the board, and is the principal

administrative officer of the county. The commission still retains their legislative functions

(adopting ordinances, appropriating funds, setting taxes, and general oversight of county policies

and program operations); however, the manager prepares the budget, may draft reports or

ordinances to the board, and may appoint department heads. In this regard the manager is also

responsible for program operation.34 This plan is used in some large counties such as Miami-

Dade.

The second type under the commission-administrator form is the chief administrative

officer plan. This plan is very popular in California and in used in the populous county of Los

Angeles. In this case the CAO is almost like a chief of staff to the board, coordinating county

programs and supervising administrative services (purchasing, budgeting, personnel, data

processing, management analysis, and capital improvements). The commission in this case,

retains their supervision of county departments including the appointment of department heads.35

The third type under this form of government is the county administrative assistant plan.

This plan is similar to the CAO plan, with the administrator assisting the preparation of the 33 Berman, Pg. 23 34 Duncombe, Pg. 44 35 Duncombe, Pg. 44-45

26

budget, but this person does not usually manage executive departments.36 That role is left to the

board. This is also slightly different from the administrative assistant under the commission

form of government. The accompanying table (2-1) shows a comparison of the three plans under

the commission-administrator form of government.

Duncombe points out several advantages to this commission-administrator form of

government, the principle advantage being the separation of policy-making and administration.

This removes administration from direct political influence. Moreover, this form of government

brings professionalism to the county level. A commission will often conduct a national search to

fulfill the role of an appointed administrator. In addition to these arguments, the commission-

administrator form is not too different from the commission form and is an easier transition in

government reorganization. The fourth advantage is that the administrator serves at the pleasure

of the commission and can be replaced immediately if necessary. Finally the county board is able

to concentrate on policy development, while day-to-day business is handled by the county

administrator, allowing greater control over performance and expenditures in government.37

While the advantages are plentiful, there are a few disadvantages with this form of

government. First of all, the success of the administrator is somewhat dependent on the strength

and cooperation of the commission. Secondly, the accountability of the administrator to the

commission could make it difficult for an administrator to provide leadership on important

county issues. The administrator must always ensure that their actions meet approval by a

majority of the board, or else the administrator may be removed. Finally, the administrator has

36 Duncombe, Pg. 45 37 Duncombe, Pg. 47

27

no political authority over the board, which can lead to tension on divisive issues. The

administrator is ultimately an agent of the commission.38

The County Executive Form (Elected) The final form of county government is the elected county executive form. Unlike the

commission-administrator form this is a significant departure from the commission form. Under

this form of government the voters elect an executive official who serves as the political,

administrative, and symbolic leader of the county. The role of the county executive resembles

that of a strong mayor form of government. There is a separation of power among the executive

and legislative branches, and the executive manages the operations of executive departments,

appoints and removes department heads, sets the county budgetary and legislative agenda, and

can also veto actions of the county board of commissioners.39 While voters still elect other row

officers like the sheriff, clerk, and treasure, the primary executive authority of the county is

vested in the county executive. In addition to this, the executive also serves as spokesperson for

the county and head of government. This form of government can be found in many counties

with slight variations. For example, in Baltimore County, MD, the county executive still

appoints a professional administrative official to assist with carrying out the duties of the office.40

While the elected county executive form of government is the most revolutionary

departure from the commission form, there are several advantages that come with a county

executive. First of all, Duncombe argues that this form is important in urban settings because it

provides strong political leadership for addressing diverse segments of the county. Secondly, a

county executive can provide strong leadership during a time of crisis, whereas an appointed

38 Ibid. 39 Berman, Pg. 23 40 Duncombe, Pg. 49

28

administrator may end up resigning or serving as a scapegoat for the commission. Similar to this

argument, the county executive is accountable to the voters in an election, while the appointed

administrator is an agent of the board and is responsible solely to the board.41

In addition to this, the elected county executive brings greater visibility and prestige to

the county. Local, state, and federal officials can point to one person who represents the county.

Finally, Duncombe argues that this form of government has the best system of checks and

balances. The executive has a veto, which may be overridden by the commission, but this

feature allows for a check on each branch of government, and also allows for the best solution on

policy decisions.42

As with the other forms of county government, there are some disadvantages, however

they seem minimal compared to the other lists that Duncombe provides. First of all, there is the

argument that a county executive may lead to bossism or a political machine in the county.

Duncombe refutes this by citing Westchester, NY and Nassau, NY (counties that have had an

elected executive for a long period of time) as examples where this has not occurred. Secondly,

there is the argument that it is difficult to find and elect an executive with the political and

administrative skills necessary; however, this is remedied by the Baltimore County, MD

variation where there is a deputy or CAO to assist the elected executive. Finally, there is the

argument that gridlock between the two branches of government could slow county progress.

Duncombe answers this charge by contending that no evidence concludes this is any worse than

the gridlock that occurs when members of the board are in conflict with one another. “The

41 Ibid. 42 Ibid.

29

executive form is not the best plan for every county, but it does provide more unified

administration and a better coordinated service delivery system than the commission system.”43

Commission Size – Large or Small

One final consideration in the discussion of options for reform is the size of the county

board of commissioners. The current size of the board in Macomb County is 26 members, a

large number by Michigan standards and by national standards as well. As previously

mentioned, the state constitution dictates the size of the county commission, which should be

between 17 and 26 for a county the size of Macomb. However, the large size of the county

commission is common to mid-western states and others that once had the township supervisory

board as the basis of local government.

“The ‘one man, one vote’ principle posed serious problems for county supervisory boards because although each township had one representative, there were often great population differences between the largest and smallest. In case after case, state and federal courts held invalid state laws and county practices requiring each township to have one representative on the county board. As a result of court action, the Wisconsin Legislature enacted a statute requiring county boards to establish supervisory districts as nearly equal in population as practicable. Michigan now has an apportionment system in which county commissioners are elected from single member districts approximately equal in population. Each Michigan county must have at least five commissioners, with the maximum varying from seven (for a county of 5,000 people or less) to thirty-five (for the state’s largest counties).”44

As a result, a large county commission, such as the case in Macomb County, resembles a more

professional county legislature, with formalized committees and procedures for the legislative

process.45

Giving due consideration to the board size, requires a review of its advantages and

disadvantages. The advantages are better representation among districts. This would

43 Duncombe, Pg. 50 44 Duncombe, Pg. 55 45 “The net effect of the changes is that the county boards in the more populous counties of New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois are similar in some ways to a small state senate. Michigan counties, for example, make extensive use of the committee system, which a number of them reporting twenty or more standing committees. Formal rules and parliamentary procedures are more widely used by these larger boards. Moreover, individual members of these large county governing boards are more likely to view themselves as county legislators rather than commissioners with administrative powers” (Duncombe, Pg. 55).

30

theoretically allow for the more racial, ethnic, and interest group representation on the county

board.46 The second advantage is that a larger board means commissioners have fewer citizens

to represent. This translates into more contact with a greater number of constituents. Finally,

larger boards have a more advanced committee system that allows commissioners to specialize

and become more proficient in a particular policy area.

On the other hand there are several disadvantages to a large board. The primary

argument is that it can be a hindrance for administration, causing it to become necessary to elect

or appoint an executive of some kind. Additionally, on a larger board, members are more

inclined to have a narrow rather than county wide perspective. Commissioners may focus solely

on their district, or their constituents, rather than the needs and well being of the county as a

whole.

Evaluations and Applications While the arguments and anecdotal evidence concerning county government reform and

modernization seem to lead one toward a favorable conclusion, it is hard to quantify the benefits

of such reform. In fact some research goes as far as to say that the assumed benefits of reform

are overstated and the alleged impact oversimplified. Though more than 40% of the nation’s

46 While this argument generally applies, Macomb County currently has no minority representation on its board of commissioners. Prior to 2007 there was an African American representing Mt. Clemens, a city with a significant minority population; however, the retirement of this commissioner in 2006 resulted in the current racial composition of the board. In addition to this, some groups in the county are advocating against a home rule charter on the basis that the charter commission would use the existing county commission districts for their representation. Estimates from the U.S. Census show an increase of African American residents in Macomb County from roughly 3.2% in 2000 to roughly 6.4% in 2006 (Neavling, Steve – Detroit Free Press). Therefore, using the existing county commission districts for the proposed charter commission would not accurately reflect the changing demographics of the county.

31

counties have a county administrator or executive, the majority of counties still operate under the

commission form.47

One of the arguments for county government reform is that it will enhance regional

cooperation among municipalities and counties. This is frequently argued in the case of

Macomb County because its board chairman is not on an equal playing field with the mayor of

Detroit, and the elected executives of Oakland and Wayne County. However, Bernard Ross and

Myron Levine argue that a strengthened county government may not necessarily assure effective

regional cooperation. In addition to this they also argue that there may not be a difference in

regard to policy or government efficiency. “In terms of taxing and spending decisions, reformed

counties appear little different than comparable unreformed counties. The modernization of

county government does not necessarily lead to more efficient, lower-cost government.”48

The basis for this argument actually comes from an article by David Morgan and Kenneth

Kickham entitled “Changing the form of County Government: Effects on Revenue and

Expenditure Policy.” In this article the authors contend that modernization does not guarantee a

lower cost of government. While a reformed government may bring about more

professionalism, the slight increases in efficiency may be overcome by the costs of growing

service needs and the costs of hiring a more skilled and professionalized workforce with

competitive wages and benefits. “If reform advocates push reorganization as a way of

controlling taxes and spending, they are likely to be disappointed. Further research on the effects

of county modernization is essential, of course. But given the results here, the impact of county

reorganization may be more subtle than some might have assumed.”49

47 NACO – “Overview of County Government.” Accessed at http://www.naco.org/Content/NavigationMenu/About_Counties/County_Government/CountyOverview.pdf 48 Ross and Levine, Pg. 385-386 49 Morgan and Kickham, Pg. 322

32

A similar conclusion is reached by David Berman in his comparison of the various forms

of county government. Though he provides and analyses the main arguments for and against

each form of government, he admits that these arguments are not based of off systematic or

scientific evidence. While there is a significant amount of literature that outlines the pros and

cons of each form, there little research that has produced quantifiable results.

“Surprisingly, there are few research projects evaluating the policy consequences of adopting different county forms of government. The indictments of the commission system and presumed strengths of the county administrator and county executive forms are well articulated in the literature and popular commentary. However, there remains little systematic (as opposed to anecdotal) evidence to support these assessments.”50

While the prevailing winds in Macomb County indicate a strong desire for a county

executive, there are some additional questions to be answered. By looking at the various forms

of government in isolation, it seems that it would behoove Macomb County to follow the trend

of its neighbors and adopt an elected executive form of government. Macomb County is the

fastest growing county in the state and is a significant player in a large metropolitan area.

Though it is a suburban county, there are several municipalities, including the 3rd and 4th largest

in the state. This type of environment seems suitable for a county executive form of government.

On the other hand, it is still unclear, based on the academic research, whether or not this

change would actually accomplish all of its desired effects. Though the political clout will

obviously be significant, the magnitude of the other benefits is somewhat uncertain. In this case

it becomes necessary to look at the experience of Macomb’s neighboring counties and analyze

the environment in which such reform would occur. Considering the legal, political, and

institutional framework may add clarity to the question of government reform and reorganization

in Macomb County. This subject will be explored in the following chapter.

50 Berman, Pg. 24

33

Table 2-1 Typical Distinguishing Features of the Appointed Officers of County Manager, Chief

Administrative Officer, and Administrative Assistant51

County Manager Chief Administrative Officer

Administrative Assistant

Appointed By County Board County Board County Board (sometimes on recommendation of the chairman)

Appointment Powers

Appoints all or most department heads and staff officers

Appoints some directors and staff agencies

Appoints just members of immediate staff

Supervision and Coordination

Supervises and coordinates all or most departments and staff agencies

Supervises some staff agencies, and coordinates the work of departments

Supervises just immediate staff members. May be delegated some coordination responsibilities by the chairman of the county board

Budget Responsible for preparing annual budget for submission to the county board

Responsible for preparing annual budget for submission to the county board

Generally is not responsible for preparing annual budget but provides information to the board chairman and county board in review of the budget.

51 Duncombe, Pg. 50 (reproduced)

34

CHAPTER THREE Getting There - The Environment for Reform

Given the consideration of various options for county government reform, there must also

be an examination of the environment in which such reform would take place. Subsequently

there are various contexts that can affect how government reorganization can and should take

place. Among these are the legal context, the political context, and the institutional context. By

examining each of these considerations one can address the second research question: How

should Macomb County proceed with the reorganization of its government?

The Legal Context

Most Michigan counties are considered general law counties. This means that they

maintain a local government that is directed by state laws and the state constitution. These laws

mandate a government structure that follows the commission form while maintaining a plural

executive. According to the state constitution, counties are responsible for collecting taxes,

maintaining vital records, law enforcement, and land development. While there are options to

change the way county government is structured, there is the limitation that county governments

retain the plural executive as a feature of county government. Thus row officers will always

remain in the case of any form.

The options available to counties who wish to reorganize their government are the

optional unified form (Alternate A or B) or the charter form. The optional unified form of

government was created under Public Act 139 of 1973 and the charter form of government was

35

Chart 3-1

Form of Government in

Michigan's 83 Counties

4%

41%

55%

Elected Executive Appointed Manager

Commission / Controller

made possible through Public Act 293 of 1966.52

Out of the 83 Michigan counties, only 3 have taken

advantage of either form of government. The

counties of Oakland and Bay exist under the

Optional Unified Form, and both have an elected

county executive. The county of Wayne, however,

has a charter form of government. This is translated in the accompanying chart, (3-1) which

shows that among Michigan counties, 4% have an elected executive, 41% have an appointed

manager or administrator, and 55% have the traditional commission form.53

The optional unified form of government was created to allow counties to have a strong

centralized executive to work with the commission. Alternate A allows for an appointed

executive, while Alternate B allows for an elected executive. Under this provision the elected

executive has veto power over the commission. The elected executive also has the power to

reorganize county departments within the realms of P.A. 139. In addition to this, the county

executive has the responsibilities of supervising county departments, enforcing rules and

ordinances, preparing and submitting a budget, appointing county department heads with board

approval, and any other responsibilities as set for the by the commission. While this form of

government is more restricted than the charter form, it nonetheless allows for a county executive

without the lengthy process of creating a charter.54

By contrast, county home rule allows a county to completely restructure its government

through the creation of a charter. A charter can change any aspect of county government except

52 Citizens Research Council of Michigan. “County Organization in Michigan.” October 1989 53 Macomb County Department of Planning & Economic Development. “Exploration of the Issue of County Executive for Macomb.” December 2006. 54 Citizens Research Council of Michigan. “County Organization in Michigan.” October 1989

36

the constitutionally mandated elected officials and their respective departments if applicable. In

addition to this, the county board can assume additional policy-making roles if the charter

abolishes other boards and commissions. This process allows the most flexibility in government,

but the process to get there is very tedious. The initial step is placing the question of drafting a

charter on the ballot. This can be initiated by the county board or through a citizen initiative. If

the question passes the ballot, a charter commission is elected to write the charter. The charter

must be approved by the governor and the citizens of the county before it goes into effect. In

addition to this the county charter must comply with the time constraints that are imposed by

P.A. 293. A final difference between the charter and the optional unified form is that the charter

form requires the creation of an elected executive unless the county is larger than 1.5 million

residents.55

The Case of Bay County56

Bay County, Michigan is a very unique case when it comes to the adoption of a county

executive. The county is fairly small in population (107,256) and is not part of the metropolitan

Detroit or southeastern Michigan region. The county is 631 square miles, has a nine-member

board of commissioners, and has an operating budget of $42 million. The motive for Bay

County to move to a county executive was based more on politics than anything else. The

change was spearheaded as a ballot initiative in response to the perception that the democratic

machine controlled the board of commissioners and the county administrator. As a result the

county voted on November 7, 1978 to adopt the optional unified form of government as set forth

in Public Act 139. 51% of the voters approved the measure and 64% chose the alternate that

55 Ibid. 56 Padden, Jeffrey D. & Public Policy Associates, Inc. “County Executive Research Project.” July 19, 2000.

37

offered an elected executive as opposed to an appointed. Six years later, the county voted on

another referendum to abolish the optional unified form and the initiative failed.

The nature of the elected executive in Bay County has always been somewhat

contentious due to the political impetus of its creation. The first county executive was a

Republican who was actually elected with some Democratic support. However, there has always

been some degree of competition between the executive and the county board. The board of

commissioners has fought over the years to limit the power of the executive and as a result

retains quite a degree of power. The executive tends to work more on daily operations of the

county while the board takes the lead on policy and budgetary development. To a certain degree

the county executive has been perceived as somewhat weak, resembling the role of an appointed

administrator rather than the county’s top elected official.

Table 3-1 Bay County 1978 Ballot Measure - Optional Unified Form

County Executive Vote Elected Executive Over Appointed

% Yes 51% 64% % No 49% 36%

The Case of Oakland County57

Oakland County, Michigan is a similar case in regard to the adoption of a county

executive through the optional unified form. Other than that, the scenario is very different.

Oakland County is an important part of metropolitan Detroit and is a large suburban county. The

population is around 1.2 million and the size is 908 square miles. Oakland is the wealthiest

county in the state and has a median home value of $228,500. The board of commissioners is 25

members and the county operating budget is roughly $728 million.

57 Ibid.

38

Oakland County was the first Michigan county to adopt a county executive form of

government. The optional unified form became available in 1973 and the county adopted the

measure in 1974. The decision to move in this direction was based more on the fact that the

county was experiencing significant growth in population and economic development. In

addition to this, the county wanted a stronger government to secure revenue-sharing dollars from

the state and federal government.

Oakland County chose the optional unified form largely because of skepticism toward

charter government and the amount of power that it could have. Though the Republican Party

currently controls county government, the move for a county executive was actually fueled by

the Democratic Party. After the creation of a county executive, there was some initial conflict

between the executive and the county board, but the conflicts were not to the same degree as Bay

County. Over the years the county executive has become a very powerful leader both in county

affairs as well as issues affecting metro Detroit.

Table 3-2 Oakland County 1974 Ballot Measure - Optional Unified Form

County Executive Vote Elected Executive Over Appointed

% Yes 66% 62% % No 34% 38%

The Case of Wayne County58

Wayne County, Michigan is a completely different from the previous two cases. Wayne

is the largest county in Michigan with a population of 1.9 million. The size of the county is 672

square miles including the city of Detroit, which is the largest municipality in Michigan. Wayne

58 Ibid.

39

County has the largest operating budget totaling at $203 billion, and maintains 5,000 county

employees.

Wayne is different because it is the only county in Michigan to have a home rule charter.

As a result, it has a very powerful elected executive with a smaller county commission of 15

members. Combining a large population with a small commission equates to a ratio of one

commissioner per 131,127 residents. The home rule charter for Wayne County was adopted in

1981 and took effect in 1983. At that time it was the third largest county in the U.S. and was

larger than 18 states.

When the county charter option was created and later amended, it was largely directed at

Wayne County. The county was in a dire fiscal crisis and was not being efficiently managed.

Wayne County had relatively poor bond ratings with a budget deficit estimated between $20 and

$60 million. In addition to making home rule available to Wayne County, the state took

additional measures to aid the county, including a financial bailout. The arguments for home

rule were based on accountability and efficient government. As a result the county adopted a

home rule charter and chose to elect an executive rather than appointing one.59

Table 3-3 Wayne County 1981 Ballot Measure – County Home Rule

County Executive Vote Elected Executive Over Appointed

% Yes 71% 73% % No 29% 27%

The Principal Case: Macomb County60

Macomb County, shares similarities with all of the other counties that adopted a county

executive. Macomb County is a suburban county in metropolitan Detroit region and has a 59 Public Act 293 allows counties with 1.5 million residents the option of electing or appointing a county executive. Counties smaller than this must elect a county executive. 60 Ibid.

40

population of about 836,983. It is the third largest county in the state (population) and covers

482 square miles. The county is home to the cities of Warren and Sterling Heights, which both

have populations well over 100,000 residents. The county has an operating budget of $449

million and a commission size of 26 members.

The current county executive debate in Macomb County is not the first to take place.

Macomb has entertained the idea several times since the option became available to Michigan

counties. In 1974 an advisory question was placed on the ballot asking residents their preference

between retaining the commission form and electing/appointing a county executive. The vast

majority favored retaining the commission form of government. In 1986, the home rule question

was placed on the ballot and was defeated with 48% of the vote. Several county officials,

business leaders, the local media, and prominent Congressman David Bonior supported this

effort. The last effort was in 2000 when a group tried to place the home rule question on the

ballot but failed to garner enough signatures for the initiative. The current effort has gathered

enough signatures to be placed on the ballot during the May 6th school board elections.

Previous efforts in Macomb County have failed for several reasons. First of all, the

county is perceived to be more frugal among the electorate. Financial implications are among

the biggest concerns of instituting a county executive form of government. Macomb County has

the lowest property tax millage in metro Detroit, and a county executive is largely viewed as an

additional layer of government that would add costs. For example, the creation of a home rule

charter may require one or more special elections based on the time specifications of Public Act

293. It is estimated that each special election would cost between $550,000 and $600,000. In

41

addition to this, the charter commission incurs expenses including stipends for the

commissioners, which could total up to $152,100.61

The second reason for the failure of previous efforts is that there has not been a crisis

causing the need of an executive. As previously mentioned, the county has low property taxes,

in addition to a solid bond rating. In both Bay County and Wayne County some sort of crisis led

to the creation of a county executive. Only in Oakland County was the creation of a county

executive viewed as a response to the positive challenges of economic and population growth.

Moreover, Oakland County did not pursue the home rule option but instead chose the optional

unified form of government. Macomb County to date has mainly pursued the charter county

option.

As a final point, it should be noted that Macomb County had an appointed county

administrator at one time. In 1982, the county created the position of county administrator and

offered it to Ed Bonior, who was the former Director of the Macomb County Community

Services Agency. However, in 1983 Mr. Bonior retired and the position was removed from the

budget.62

Table 3-4 Macomb County 1974 Ballot Advisory Question – Government Form

Remain With the Board of Commissioners Form

Elected County Executive with Board

County Executive Appointed by the Board of Commissioners

% selecting this option

63% 24% 13%

61 Macomb County Department of Planning & Economic Development. “Exploration of the Issue of County Executive for Macomb.” December 2006. 62 Ibid.

42

Table 3-5

Macomb County 1986 Ballot Measure – County Home Rule Establish a Home-Rule Charter? % Yes 48% % No 52%

The Political Context In addition to the options available under Michigan law, it is important to consider the

political environment in which this debate is occurring. Similar to the 1986 measure, the 2008

proposal has strong support from several county officials, the business community, and the local

media. However there is still significant opposition including an organized effort to defeat the

proposal.

Among the business community the county executive proposal enjoys support from

several groups including the Detroit Regional Chamber and the Macomb County Chamber of

Commerce. As a matter of fact, Grace Shore, the CEO/COO of the Macomb County Chamber of

Commerce, is also the co-chairperson of “Charter = County Executive”, the group that led the

petition drive to place the issue on the ballot. She is quoted on the Macomb Chamber website

saying “changing the way our County does business is a high priority and important to

encouraging economic investment and development in the future.”63 In addition to this the

Detroit Regional Chamber strongly supports a county executive because it would bring political

balance to the tri-county area.

“The Detroit Regional Chamber supports the implementation of a county executive for Macomb County … We believe that the election of a county executive in Macomb will balance power among Detroit Regional Counties … By empowering a county spokesperson, Macomb County can harness to political clout needed to diversify their tax base through greater business attraction.”64

63 Macomb County Chamber of Commerce Website, http://www.macombcountychamber.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=76 64 Detroit Regional Chamber Website, http://www.detroitchamber.com/public_affairs/index.asp?cid=4&rcid=1282

43

It should also be noted that the Detroit Regional Chamber mentions the optional unified form in

this policy statement, but they are supporting the current charter effort.

There are also several public officials who are publicly supporting this effort. They

include Rep. Sander Levin, U.S. Congressman; Mark Brewer, Chairman of the Michigan

Democratic Party; Eric Smith, Macomb County Prosecutor; Mark Hackel, Macomb County

Sheriff; Ted Wahby, Macomb County Treasurer; 9 county commissioners, 4 state

representatives, and a host of municipal and local school board officials. Moreover, the

chairperson emeritus of the group is Nancy White, the former chairperson of the Macomb

County Board of Commissioners. Aside from these community leaders, several local unions and

organizations, and the Macomb County Democratic Party, are supporting the charter proposal.

In opposition to the proposal are several groups including the Macomb County

Republican Party, an organization called “Protect Our Future Macomb”, civil rights activists and

some local and county officials. The reasons range from concerns about additional tax burden

and the expenses of the charter process, to the fact that the charter election will be held in May,

when voter turnout is very low. However, it should be noted that many of those who oppose the

charter proposal, still support the idea of having a county executive.

The Macomb County Republican Party officially opposes the proposal, arguing that the

current successes of the county do not warrant such drastic change. In addition to this, “Protect

Our Future Macomb” is launching an effort to counter the “Charter = County Executive” group,

by highlighting negative aspects of Wayne County government. Another source of opposition

comes from the Macomb County Ministerial Alliance, a faith-based civil rights advocacy

organization. The group’s leader, Rev. D.L. Bradley, is leading their opposition on the basis that

reducing the number of commissioners will hurt the African American community which

44

currently has no representation on the county board. The group also opposes the composition of

the charter commission because it is based on the existing districts, which do not reflect the

significant growth in the minority population of the county.

"We don't so much oppose the idea of a county executive as we do oppose creating larger districts, which will have the effect of swallowing up emerging African-American communities within Macomb County … Creating a county executive and reducing the number of commissioners is not a magic bullet that will eliminate the underrepresentation of minorities; it will actually make eventual representation that much more improbable, especially when you consider that there is no diversity on the commission itself now."65

In addition to their opposition, the Macomb County Ministerial Alliance legally challenged the

composition of the proposed charter commission.

Finally, opposition is coming from several officials on the county board of

commissioners. There is skepticism about relinquishing the power of the county board, the

likelihood of a higher tax rate under a county executive, the added expense of the charter

process, and the financial burden of a county executive’s office. However, it is also assumed

that those commissioners in opposition are merely afraid of losing their seat if the charter

reduces the number of county commissioners. While the groups on both sides are numerous,

their arguments are compelling and deserve thoughtful consideration. Needless to say, the

politics of this proposal will ultimately determine the outcome of whether Macomb County gets

an executive form of government.

The Institutional Context The institutional environment of the county is important because it sheds light on the

central question of reform. In this context one must address the very nature of the existing

government structure. This includes concerns about efficiency and effectiveness, concerns about

Macomb County’s ability to compete with other counties in metro Detroit, and other concerns

65 Lynch, Jim. “Blacks challenge redistricting: Ministerial Alliance plans to go to court over Macomb County proposal for executive-style rule.” The Detroit News – Online. February, 13, 2008.

45

about the status quo and potential reforms. Though the arguments for and against a county

executive are numerous, this section is purposed to examine some of the prominent arguments,

and apply them to the current construction of Macomb County. The arguments against reform

shall be entertained first, followed by the arguments in support of reform.

One of the first opposition arguments is that the county board of commissioners is a very

strong form of representative government. There are 26 commissioners, which equates to a large

and diverse legislative body that represents the community it serves. Moreover, because there

are so many commissioners, each elected representative has a small hands-on district and is

directly accountable to their constituents. While smaller districts do increase the accountability

of commissioners to their constituents, the board as a whole is larger than most county legislative

bodies. State law mandates that a county between 600,000 and 1,000,000 residents must have 17

to 35 commissioners; however, the current board is not truly representative of Macomb County.

Though the board represents a cross cut of the population in terms of age, occupational

background, and political ideology, the board still lacks greater diversity along racial and ethnic

lines. Moreover, by comparison the two largest counties in Michigan actually have smaller

county boards. Wayne County, the largest, has 15 commissioners, while Oakland County, the

second largest, has 25 commissioners.66

A second reason in opposition of reform is that moving to a county executive form would

create an expensive and unnecessary layer of government that could force an increase in county

taxes. Moreover, the chief executive would be less accessible to the public than the

commissioners. In regard to the first point, it is widely uncertain as to how large the financial

66 Wayne County has a home rule charter form of government, which allows their board to have a smaller number of commissioners even though their population is 1.97 million. Accordingly, Oakland County has a population of 1.21 million, and operates under the optional unified form of government which allows the government to have an elected executive in conjunction with the regular state mandated 25-35 commissioners. Though both counties are larger than Macomb County, their county boards of commissioners are respectively smaller.

46

burden would be if the county instituted an elected executive. Some plans envision a reduction

in the number of county commissioners in order to balance out the financial impact of the new

layer of government. However, other plans advocate leaving the board at its current size in order

to balance the power that an elected executive might wield. Obviously, keeping the board at its

current size would be more expensive than a reduction in the number of commissioners, but the

most suitable and desirable option is yet to be determined. In addition to this, while opponents

say that a county executive would add an additional layer of government, others argue that

having a CEO would actually streamline government and make it more effective. As a final

point on this argument, it is difficult to determine with any certainty whether an elected

executive would be inaccessible to the public. While a county commissioner would be more

accessible due to the limited number of constituents he or she represents, the elected executive

(as opposed to the appointed executive) would be accountable to the entire county. Though this

places a larger burden on the executive, this person would still need to amass a sufficient

electoral coalition in order to assume or retain countywide office.

A third argument in opposition of reform is that an elected executive would take on the

role of a political boss or powerbroker that could influence the electoral campaigns of

commissioners and other countywide officials like the treasurer, the prosecutor, the sheriff, and

even judicial candidates. While this is a valid argument, it is somewhat weak. Current county

officials who have been in their position for a number of years assume similar influence in the

happenings of county and municipal electoral politics. Furthermore, this argument assumes that

the executive will automatically dominate all aspects of county politics. This argument doesn’t

outweigh the potential advantages that such an office could pose. There will always be public

47

officials that have a certain degree of influence, but it is up to the electorate to make the final

decision as to who will be elected to public office.

A final argument against reform that I will entertain is that the current county government

runs efficiently. This is evidenced by the fact that Macomb has Michigan’s lowest county tax

rate, and consistently wins awards from the National Association of Counties. Evidently, the

county is performing well in order to have received such recognitions and retained such a low tax

rate. This is probably the most compelling argument outside of the financial argument. If the

government works should it not then be left alone? Conversely, others might say that in the

midst of the county’s success, there are areas that need reform, or can at least be improved.

Implementing a county executive form of government is one such reform that may fix existing

problems and allow the county to face future challenges.

In the face of these compelling arguments against county government reform exist

significant counter-arguments in favor of altering the existing form of government. One of the

initial arguments for a reform is that it would provide leadership and accountability while

increasing Macomb County’s political clout. Currently, the board chairman is not accountable to

the entire electorate, and lacks the political validity to provide substantial leadership on

important county matters. “While county executives are elected, our board chairperson is

‘selected’ by majority vote of the 26-member board. Not only does this make the chairperson

politically responsive to his supporters on the board, it leaves our county without an independent

leader chosen by voters.”67 Subsequently, without the political mandate that comes with being

elected countywide, there is no person in the current government structure that can effectively

lead the county and provide a vision and direction for the county. Though the board chairman

67 “County Executive will give Macomb much needed clout” The Macomb Daily, October 24, 2007.

48

does deliver the State of the County Address, this address is nothing more than a prodding of the

county commission by one of its own. The address is still at the whim of the commission and all

policy must pass with a majority of the commission.

In addition to the accountability and leadership, reform could possibly bring clout to

Macomb County. An elected executive would have much more influence when dealing with

other regional, state, and national leaders. Moreover, it would place Macomb County on equal

standing with the counties of Wayne and Oakland. “History has shown us that when the so-

called Big-Four – executives from Wayne and Oakland counties, the mayor of Detroit and the

chairperson of the Macomb Board of Commissioners – meet to discuss mutual problems or

future plans, we come up short. In some political gatherings the group has become know as the

Big Three and a half, with our member being the half.”68 As it currently stands two out of the

three metropolitan Detroit counties have an elected executive. The outlier is Macomb, which

arguably places it at a significant disadvantage when dealing with regional competition or even

regional cooperation.

Another pro reform argument would be the separation of powers within county

government. Because the commission is tasked with administrative and legislative

responsibilities, the current structure has no separation or checks and balances. The commission

form resembles some aspects of the parliamentary system, yet the board chair does not have

power akin to that of a prime minister. Dividing power among a legislative and executive branch

would allow checks on the two branches of government. Similar to the federal or state

government, a system of divided power would empower a single official to manage the

68 Ibid.

49

bureaucracy, while the representative body would handle the legislative matters. Moreover, both

branches would have to collaborate on matters of policy.

Implementing such a system creates a chief executive officer for the county that could

ultimately streamline the bureaucracy. In addition to this, by reforming the current structure,

some argue that the commission would not need to be so large, citing the case of Wayne County.

Residents would have a commissioner that directly represents them, and a county executive that

that represents the entire county. Such a reform could reduce the inefficiency and

ineffectiveness of the current model by which the board of commissioners holds all the power.

Perhaps the most compelling argument for county government reform would be the

recent revelation of scandals and management faux pas in Macomb County. In the past few

weeks the public has been made aware of several incidents that do not show the county in a

positive light. Among the incidents are:69

• A health care scam in which an ex-county employee worked for eight days yet collected

$230,000 in health benefits. It took county officials over eight years to discover this error

and bring it to the attention of county leaders who are currently addressing the matter.

• Warnings from Mr. Dave Diegel, the County Director of Finance, that the 2008 budget

faces a deficit of $12 million. As a result the county will require significant cuts in

spending, with the possibility of eliminating some programs or closing some facilities.

69 “Embarrassing revelations make executive easy sell” The Macomb Daily, October 28, 2007

50

• The inability to find a new director of Human resources despite spending 10 months and

close to $25,000. The Board’s first choice turned the county down, and the second

choice, who is serving as director on an interim basis, refused to take the job full time.

This is all occurring as the county gets ready to begin labor negotiations which could

substantially impact next year’s budget.

• The resignation of the director of veteran’s services amid allegations that he offered a

county employee (a widow with children) financial assistance in exchange for sex.

• The likelihood that the future of successful county program which provides a discount

drug card for seniors, may hinge on the outcome of a 2-year $150,000 dispute with the

company that oversees the administration of the program.

While this strange series of occurrences is highly unfortunate, it nonetheless provides fuel

for those advocating county government reforms. Critics cite these mishaps as proof for the need

of a hands-on administrator that can assume the accountability over these actions and has the

authority to manage and correct these issues. However, one cannot certainly determine whether

these incidents would have occurred even with a county executive in place. Yet such an official

might be better disposed to handle these issues more effectively than the Board.

Given all of the arguments supporting and discouraging reform, one must return to the

original question of whether there is need for reform? From this discussion there is no definite

answer to the question except to say that maybe there is some need for reform. What is clear,

however, is that while there is uncertainty as to the need of reform, there is a substantial desire

51

for government reform within Macomb County. The test will be balancing this desire with the

actual needs of the county.

Should reform progress, as the current tides seem to indicate, one must heed the

arguments that have been examined in this chapter. From these arguments it is clear that

Macomb County should at least consider the following criteria when evaluating potential options

for reform.

• Reforms should respect the legislative authority of the commission as a representative

body. The commission should not be weakened as to render it useless and ineffective,

nor should it be reduced to the point that commissioners are no longer able to adequately

respond to the needs of constituents while maintaining a relationship with them. In

addition to this, due attention must be given to the unintended consequences of reform,

such as the racial composition of the board of commissioners.

• Reforms must be cost effective in the short and long term. While the advantages of

reform may be significant, the county is facing immediate budget challenges that may

cause strain on county finances. If a reform is presently sought, it should not place

additional burdens on the government as to cause an increase in taxes or sacrifice funds

that would otherwise go to government services.

• Because the current government structure is fairly effective, reforms must maintain this

status quo while proving the ability to increase government efficiency.

52

• Reforms must provide accountability within government, leadership for the county and

political clout outside of the county. The desire for reform stems from the fact that this is

lacking with the current system. If a reform is to be successful it must entail all three of

these tenets.

• Reforms should provide for the separation of powers among the legislative and the

executive branches. Moreover, adequate checks and balances must be provided in order

to diffuse the concentration of power in one branch

• Reforms must address the streamlining of the executive branch in order to make

government more effective and efficient.

While the available options for reform might not fully address all of these points, there is

at least a framework for the analysis of each option. Moreover, it will be important to

incorporate these arguments into the reform discussion while simultaneously accounting for

other contexts (legal and political) in which the reform takes place. From this framework one

can attempt to answer the two research questions.

53

Table 3-6 Profiles of County Case Studies

County Bay Oakland Wayne Macomb

Population 107,256 1,200,531 1,966,909 820,599 Size 631 square

miles 908 square miles

672 square miles

482 square miles

Median Income

$41,384 $64,022 $40,881 $53,321

Total Taxable Value of Property

$2,651,998,662 $55,986,490,872 $45,917,929,737 $26,980,530,368

Median Value of Housing

$105,200 $228,500 $135,900 $169,300

Total Mills 10.9338 4.4315 7.822 4.2058 Operating Budget

$42 million $728 million $2.3 billion $449 million

Number of Employees (full and part-time)

511 4,000 5,000 2,800

Number of Commissioners

9 25 15 26

Number of Commissioners per resident

1 for every 11,917

1 for every 48,021

1 for every 131,127

1 for every 30,393

Commissioner Salary

Base: $33,448 Base: $68,676 (set at 40% of County Executive’s salary, which is set at 97% of the Michigan governor’s salary) ($108,989 w/benefits)

Additional salary for Board Chair ($12,000), Vice Chair ($6,000), Pro-tem ($6,000), and Committee Chairs ($4,000)

Base: $34,069 ($60,722 w/benefits)

Board Chair: $73,790 ($113,200 w/benefits)

Benefits Full coverage health, dental, life, pension worth average 53.4% of salary

Full coverage health, dental, life, pension, worth 58.7% of salary

Full coverage health, dental, life, worth $14,875. Pension worth 33.25% of salary

54

CHAPTER FOUR Putting it Together: Findings and Conclusions

In outlining the parameters of this analytical paper, two general research questions were

presented. Throughout the preceding chapters, this paper has reviewed of the material relevant

the current situation in Macomb County by discussing the general background of Macomb

County, the various forms of government that are found in U.S. counties, the structural options

that are available in the state of Michigan, the political climate of the current discussions, and

finally the list of prominent arguments for and against a county executive in Macomb County.

After considering these items one may now begin to tackle the research questions.

Should Macomb County adopt the county executive form of government (as opposed to

another form)?

This first question cuts to the core of county government and administration by

essentially asking which form of government is the most effective and efficient. In general the

answer to this question is that it depends on the county. However, for Macomb County the

answer is “probably.” One cannot definitively say with a strong degree of confidence that a

county executive will or will not benefit Macomb County, but the evidence does indicate that it

would most likely be a positive move.

Across the United States there are approximately 424 counties that have an elected

executive. This is 14% of all counties in the nation. Though this number seems relatively small,

the ratio of counties with an elected executive increases with county population. For example,

55

Chart 4-1

Government Form for Counties Between 500,000 and 999,999 Residents

44%

42%

11%

24%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Percentage

Elected Executive Appointed Manager Both Neither

Neither 24%

Both 11%

Appointed Manager 42%

Elected Executive 44%

Percentage

there are 72 counties (including Macomb) with a population between 500,000 and 999,999. In

this group alone, 44% have an elected executive, 42% have an appointed manager, and 24% have

neither.70 It should also be noted that 11% of the counties in this group have both an elected

executive and an appointed manager.

Finally, there are several prominent

counties, similar in size to Macomb, that

have an elected executive. These include

Baltimore County, MD, Essex County,

NJ, Prince Georges’s County, MD, and

Montgomery County, MD.71

In addition to these numbers there are a few conclusive findings regarding the adoption of

a county executive. First of all, the position has a positive perception in the areas of leadership,

clout, accountability and internal management. While this is merely an issue of perception, it has

also been found that benefits are usually achieved in these four areas. For example there is a

wide consensus of significant internal benefits of having a county executive, such as a single

point of contact, continuity in county agenda setting, and appropriate follow through on

administrative matters. In addition to this, having a county executive does bring clout in terms of

leadership and visibility throughout the county as well as the regional, state, and federal levels of

government. Moreover, a county executive has been shown to increase partnerships between the

county and local municipalities, thereby countering the argument that an executive would take

away local power and control. Though the other forms of county government may provide some

70 Recall that in Michigan’s 83 counties 55% retain the commission form or have a controller, 41% appoint a manager/administrator, and only 4% elect a county executive. 71 Macomb County Department of Planning & Economic Development. “Exploration of the Issue of County Executive for Macomb.” December 2006.

56

degree of leadership, clout, accountability and internal management, the county executive form

is best suited for the task.72

It goes without saying that there are some points of caution regarding the county

executive form of government. First of all, the effects are not consistent among all counties. For

example, in Michigan, Bay County’s executive has not realized its full potential due to the power

struggle between the county legislative and executive branches. While this may be problematic,

this problem has persisted since Bay County adopted an elected executive, and is more reflective

of the local climate rather than the weaknesses of the county executive structure.73

A county executive will also likely result in increased costs for administration, but it is

difficult to quantify the impact of a county executive through a cost/benefit analysis.74 As a

result the county may either directly incur the costs or devise a mechanism to offset the costs of

such a move.

There is also a negative externality in terms of the disenfranchisement or under-

representation of minority residents.75 This is the argument that the Macomb County Ministerial

Alliance is making. It is widely proven that by having a large number of small electoral districts,

the diversity of the elected body is increased. By contrast, the Macomb County Board of

Commissioners currently has no minorities among its 26 members, and reducing this number

would decrease the likelihood that minority representation could be achieved.

As a final note, it goes without saying that the positive and negative results ultimately

depend on who is elected to the position.76 Many of the benefits are realized when the county

executive is personally driven. For the case of Macomb County, an elected executive is probably

72 Padden, Jeffrey D. & Public Policy Associates, Inc. “County Executive Research Project.” July 19, 2000. 73 Ibid. 74 Ibid. 75 Ibid. 76 Ibid.

57

a good move. The county must simply design the position in a manner that optimizes its success,

find a way to offset or minimize the costs of an elected executive, and still ensure that

underrepresented groups are included in the political process. If these items are satisfied, then an

elected executive will likely find success in Macomb County.

Given the current legal, political, and institutional environment how should Macomb

County proceed with the reorganization of its government?

If Macomb County is to move to a county executive form of government then there are

essentially two options available, the optional unified form, and the home rule charter. Both

options represent a significant departure from the commission form of government, but the latter

is the most radical of the two. Whether home rule is good for a county depends a great deal upon

the functional effectiveness of the county board. It also depends upon the existing financial and

managerial problems that exist in the county.77 Home rule can be a very powerful tool, but there

are some problems that government structure alone cannot solve.

Because the state of Michigan allows an additional option to counties seeking an elected

executive, adequate consideration should be given to each. By adopting the optional unified

form, “county organizational structure can be modified to obtain the benefits of executive

coordination in a system of limited checks and balances without the adoption of a county

charter.”78 Home rule charter was necessary in Wayne County because of the severity of its

financial and political problems. However, such a reform may not be necessary in a county with

less severe concerns.

77 Citizens Research Council of Michigan. “A Review of the Effects of Home Rule on Wayne County Government.” Report No. 286. September 1986. 78 Ibid.

58

Taking all of this into account, how should Macomb County proceed with the

reorganization of its government? The county should seek to adopt the optional unified form of

government, as it will provide for a county executive without the complications and barriers that

would arise in the charter process.

“The county charter option offers more flexibility in terms of consolidation and the distribution of formal powers, but requires more time, difficulty, and cost to implement, as well as more political hurdles to overcome, than does Public Act 139. With only one county (Wayne) having established a home rule charter, it is difficult to describe fully what additional benefits are derived from engaging in this process.”79

The optional unified form of government seems better suited for Macomb County at this

time because it also can fit into the current context. First of all, this form fits into the legal

context, but it also works in the existing political environment, and satisfies the various

institutional concerns that were addressed.

Within the political context, many concerns can be alleviated through the optional unified

form of government. While a county executive may pose some additional expenses, the financial

burden of a charter process will not exist as well as the possibility of a higher property tax limit,

which is admissible under a home rule charter. In addition to this, the charter proponents are

banking on a reduction in the commission size, but the optional unified form would keep the

commission as it currently stands and then the district lines can be fully revamped after the 2010

census. In this regard, the concerns of the civil rights community may be addressed, but the

county as a whole must do more to include minorities in the political process, recognizing that

several cities in Macomb County have had a substantial increase in the number of minority

residents since 2000.80

79 Padden, Jeffrey D. & Public Policy Associates, Inc. “County Executive Research Project.” July 19, 2000. 80 “Warren's African-American population was 2.7 percent in 2000 but grew to 9.9 percent in 2006. Clinton Township's African-American population went from 4.7 percent to 6.7 percent. Sterling Heights' increased from 1.3 percent to 5 percent.” (Lynch, Jim. The Detroit News Online. 2/13/08)

59

Finally, the optional unified form can fit within the institutional context presented in the

previous chapter. Under the optional unified form the county legislative authority is maintained

and the unintended consequences of restructuring the county board are minimized. The optional

unified form will maintain the effectiveness of the status quo while providing the ability for the

county to become more efficient. Finally, the optional unified form streamlines the bureaucracy,

provides a system of checks and balances, and will give Macomb County the accountability,

leadership, and political clout it is seeking. This is not to say that the charter process cannot

provide many of these same benefits, but the optional unified form seems poised to have a

greater output in these areas given the context of Macomb County.

The only concern from the institution standpoint is the cost effectiveness argument. The

optional unified form is definitely more cost effective than the home rule charter, and there are

likely going to be savings in the long term, but the short term is hard to quantify.

Acknowledging that there may be short-term costs the county may want to pursue the optional

unified form after the counties finances are more in balance.

It is important to recognize that the optional unified form of government is not perfect,

nor beneficial for every county; nevertheless, it is well suited for the needs and wants of the

various communities within Macomb County. If the county is to pursue an elected executive

then this is the path of least resistance, likely to produce more benefits in the long run. Therefore

the optional unified form of government should be preferred over the home rule charter process.

60

Table 4-1 Government Forms in Counties with a

Population between 700,000 and 900,000 Elected Executive County Administrator County State Population Yes No Salt Lake UT 898,387 Yes No Shelby TN 897,472 Yes Yes Orange FL 896,344 Yes No Bergen NJ 884,118 Yes No Honolulu HI 876,156 Yes Yes Montgomery MD 873,341 Yes No Indianapolis/Marion IN 860,454 No Yes Hamilton OH 845,303 No Yes Pima AZ 843,746 No Yes Fulton GA 816,006 No No Travis TX 812,280 Yes Yes Prince George’s MD 801,515 No Yes Fresno CA 799,407 Yes Yes Essex NJ 793,633 No No Macomb MI 788,149 Yes No Duval FL 778,879 Yes No San Francisco CA 776,733 Yes Yes Baltimore MD 754,292 Yes No Ventura CA 753,197 No Yes Middlesex NJ 750,162 No No Montgomery PA 750,097 Yes No Monroe NY 735,343 No Yes San Mateo CA 707,161 Yes No Pierce WA 700,820

61

RECOMMENDATIONS Considering the findings and conclusions of this analytical paper, the following

recommendations are offered as a path forward to reform government structure in Macomb

County, Michigan.

1. Macomb County Michigan should pursue a county executive form of government.

While the end result of such a move is still uncertain, there is overwhelming evidence

indicating that this would be a good move for the county. Moreover, this move would

bring leadership, clout, accountability, and increased management to the county more so

than any other form of government.

2. If Macomb County is to move to a county executive form of government then the

county should seek to adopt the optional unified form of government. This form will

provide for a county executive without the complications and barriers that would arise in

the charter process. This option is also better suited for Macomb County because the

optional unified form will maintain the effectiveness of the status quo while providing the

ability for the county to become more efficient.

3. While the optional unified form of government is preferable, adopting charter

home-rule would still allow the county to create the position of county executive.

The charter option should still be considered as merely a means to get to a county

62

executive form of government. Moreover, if the charter method is pursued, the charter

should be written in a manner that maintains the effectiveness of the current system while

providing for the new layer of administration that comes with a county executive.

4. Should the county decide against pursuing a county executive form of government,

there should be some consideration of hiring a County Manager/Administrator.

This would achieve many of the managerial benefits of a county executive form of

government. Furthermore, to address the issue of clout, the county should look at ways

to strengthen the position of board chairman. This could include making the chairman an

at large seat that requires election county-wide; however, such a structural change for a

general law county may actually require approval from the legislature and governor.

63

FUTURE RESEARCH

As a whole, it is important to reiterate that the literature concerning the role and function

of county government is very limited. Most scholars focus on the federal, state, or local level,

while little attention is given to the county level. Even in the course of my own personal

research, the available resources concerning county government have been exhausted. As a

personal challenge it was necessary to add to this body of work.

In the course of this process, a great deal of information has been uncovered, but it

nonetheless pales in comparison to the literature on other levels of governance. In light of this

my first admission is that much more research needs to be done concerning county government.

One of the weaknesses of this analytical paper is that it drew on research from a few key sources.

A much wider collection of literature is needed in order to fully analyze the work that county

governments do.

Secondly, there is much anecdotal evidence as to the benefits and consequences of each

form of government (commission, commission/administrator, and county executive), but as

previously stated, there is not much quantitative data concerning the effectiveness of each form.

This argument was originally presented in my literature review, by David Berman who wrote the

following:

“Surprisingly, there are few research projects evaluating the policy consequences of adopting different county forms of government. The indictments of the commission system and presumed strengths of the county administrator and county executive forms are well articulated in the literature and popular commentary. However, there remains little systematic (as opposed to anecdotal) evidence to support these assessments.”81

81 Berman, Pg. 24

64

Finally, in regard to the cases that were evaluated, there are two essential weaknesses.

First of all, each county was viewed from a bird’s eye perspective. This was partially done to

give an overview of the county’s experience with an elected executive, but also because of the

limitations of this research project alone. To accurately view the historical impact of a county

executive in Oakland, Bay, and Wayne counties, one would have to conduct a far more detailed

analysis (including a significant quantitative analysis) which is somewhat outside of the purview

of this project and the goals that I originally set.

Secondly, in only looking at the three Michigan counties that have an executive form of

government, this paper failed to account for the numerous counties nationwide that have a

county executive form of government. This was partially design, and partially a limitation of the

analytical paper as well. My intention was to look at the perspective of other Michigan counties

because they have the similarity of existing in the same state. Also, Oakland and Wayne

counties are neighbors to Macomb, and face similar environments and challenges. On the other

hand, a more thorough look at the effectiveness of county government would compare and

contrast the experiences of many other counties in several other states. This is something that

could be encompassed in a future project.

All of these areas, therefore, represent paths for future research. In my view, this

analytical paper was not meant to fully answer all the questions, but rather to challenge me to

develop deeper questions concerning county government. While a valid attempt was made to

answer the research questions in an unbiased, honest, and thoughtful manner, much more

research and analysis could have been conducted. Nevertheless, this project was still

worthwhile, because it tacked the subject of county government reform, while still provoking

65

questions that can be developed in future research projects. Therefore, these points should not be

viewed as weaknesses to the project itself, but rather avenues for future research and learning.

66

AFTERWORD

On May 6th, 2008, the voters of Macomb County voted favorably to begin the process of

establishing a home rule charter for the county. Though the proposal passed by a margin of

roughly 13 percentage points, the turnout for this election was somewhat low. The number of

voters in this election was only 39,712 countywide.

Though this vote begins the process of a home rule charter, there are still several hurdles

that remain. Now that the initiative has passed, a charter commission must be elected to write

the charter. The charter must then be approved by the governor and the citizens of the county

before it goes into effect. In addition to this the county charter must comply with the time

constraints that are imposed by P.A. 293 (See Appendix A). It remains to be seen whether those

opposed to the charter will try to stifle the process as things progress.

In general, the charter vote will still need to be analyzed, but it does seem to affirm that

people in the county (at least those that voted) are ready for an elected executive. Over the

coming weeks and months the debate will continue, as a group of charter commissioners figure

out exactly how to restructure Macomb County’s government. Maybe this research project will

be useful to the commission in their deliberations.

Macomb County 2008 Ballot Measure – County Home Rule

Establish a Home-Rule Charter? % Yes 56.1% % No 43.9%

67

WORKS CITED Berman, David R. County Governments in an Era of Change. Greenwood Press. Westport, CT © 1993 Bollens, John C. American County Government. Sage Publications, Inc. Beverly Hills, CA.

© 1969 Citizens Research Council of Michigan. “A Review of the Effects of Home Rule on Wayne County Government.” Report No. 286. September 1986. Citizens Research Council of Michigan. “County Organization in Michigan.” October 1989 Detroit Regional Chamber Website. Accessed at http://www.detroitchamber.com/public_affairs/index.asp?cid=4&rcid=1282 Duncombe, Herbert Sydney. Modern County Government. National Association of Counties. Washington, D.C. ©1977 Lynch, Jim. “Blacks challenge redistricting: Ministerial Alliance plans to go to court over Macomb County proposal for executive-style rule.” The Detroit News (online). February, 13, 2008. Accessed at http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080213/METRO/802130386 Macomb County Chamber of Commerce Website. “Press Release – Petitions Certified in County Executive Effort.” Accessed at

http://www.macombcountychamber.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=76

Macomb County Department of Planning & Economic Development. “Exploration of the Issue of County Executive for Macomb.” December 2006. (Compilation of various reports and documents) Macomb County, MI. “2005 Macomb County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report” obtained at http://www.macombcountymi.gov/Finance/reports.htm Macomb County, MI. “2006 Macomb County Annual Report.” Macomb County, MI “2007 Macomb County Annual Report.” Accessed at http://www.macombcountymi.gov/publicAffairs/pdf/anualreport2007.pdf

68

Macomb County, MI. “Brief History of Macomb County.” Accessed at http://www.macombcountymi.gov/history.htm Macomb County, MI. “Macomb County Census Information.” Accessed at http://www.macombcountymi.gov/census.htm Macomb County, MI. “Macomb County Elected Officials.” Access at http://www.macombcountymi.gov/electedofficials.htm Macomb County, MI. “Macomb County Profile.” Accessed at

http://www.macombcountymi.gov/Community_Profiles/pdfs/Macombcounty/MacombCounty.pdf

Macomb County, MI. “Macomb County Statistics.” Accessed at http://www.macombcountymi.gov/statistics.htm Morgan, David R.; Kickham, Kenneth. “Changing the Form of County Government: Effects on Revenue and Expenditure Policy.” Public Administration Review, Vol. 59, No. 4. (Jul. - Aug., 1999), pp. 315-324 National Association of Counties (NACO). “Overview of County Government” – Accessed on 02/25/08 at

http://www.naco.org/Content/NavigationMenu/About_Counties/County_Government/CountyOverview.pdf

National Association of Counties (NAC0). “The History of County Government.” – Accessed on 01/15/08 at

http://www.naco.org/Template.cfm?Section=History_of_County_Government&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=14268

Padden, Jeffrey D. & Public Policy Associates, Inc. “County Executive Research Project.” July 19, 2000. Ross, Bernard H.; Levine, Myron A. Urban Politics: Power in Metropolitan America - Sixth Edition. Belmont, CA. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. © 2001 The Macomb Daily – Editorial. “County Executive will give Macomb much needed clout.”

October 24, 2007. Accessed at http://www.macombdaily.com The Macomb Daily – Editorial. “Embarrassing revelations make executive easy sell.” October 28, 2007. Accessed at http://www.macombdaily.com

69

APPENDIX: A

COUNTY EXECUTIVE CHARTER COUNTIES82

How a Charter County Form of Government is Created and Related Information

I. Adoption of Resolution (a) A majority of Commissioners elect may adopt a resolution providing for the submission of the question of electing a charter commission for the purpose of framing and submitting to the electorate a county home rule charter. or (b) If a petition signed by at least 5 percent of the register electors of the county is received by the Board of Commissioners, then the majority of the Commissioners elect shall adopt the resolution as described above. II. The County Apportionment Commission/Number of Charter Commissioners The apportionment commission is charged with the responsibility of establishing charter commission districts equal in number to the number of charter commissioners to be elected. They must establish the districts within 30 days of the adoption of the resolution. In Macomb, the number of charter commissioners is to be no less than 25, nor no more than 35. The apportionment commission consists of the Clerk, Treasurer, Prosecutor and the Chairpersons of the Democratic and Republican parties. III. Charter Commissioner Qualifications A candidate for the office of charter commissioner must be a qualified elector in a candidate’s district for not less than six months. An elected county official is not eligible to be a candidate for election to the office of charter commissioner unless the person has resigned from their elected position. IV. Ballot Language The ballot language is statutory and is as follows:

82 Macomb County Department of Planning & Economic Development. “Exploration of the Issue of County Executive for Macomb.” December 2006.

70

“Shall the County of Macomb elect a charter commission for the purpose of framing and submitting to the electorate of the county a county home rule charter under the constitution and laws of Michigan?” Yes ( ) No ( ) V. Ballot Preparation It is the County Clerk’s responsibility to prepare, at County expense, the necessary ballots for the election of the charter commission. All ballots are to be prepared, and all elections conducted in accordance with the election laws of the State. VI. Date of Election for Creation of Charter Commission: The original resolution adopted by the Board of Commissioners sets the date for the election. The statute says the election shall be held at the next regular primary, presidential primary, or general election occurring not less than 60 days after the adoption of the resolution. VII. Primary and Final Election of Charter Commission Members83 The original resolution passed by the Board will also provide for the date of the primary election for charter commissioners which may be the same date as the date of the submission of the question of whether a charter commission shall be elected. The final election of the charter commission is to be held at the next primary or general election occurring not less than 60 days after the primary election for charter commissioners. If a regular primary or general election does not occur within 180 days after the date of the primary, the County of Board of Commissioners shall provide for a date on which the election of the commission shall be held. VIII. Charter Commission Duties and Functions; Filing Vacancies 1. Each member elected as a charter commissioner must take an oath of office and file same with the County Clerk prior to the first meeting of the commission. 2. The charter commission is required to have an organizational meeting within 20 days after the date of its first meeting. The organizational meeting shall consist of seating its members, selecting its officers and establishing rules of procedure. 3. A majority of the members elect constitutes a quorum to transact business. A smaller number may adjourn a meeting of the commission.

83 Macomb County is at this step in the overall process. The initial proposal passed on May 6, 2008 and the county will now hold a primary and general election for the office of charter commissioner.

71

4. All business conducted by the charter commission must be conducted at a public meeting in compliance with the Open Meetings Act. Public notice of a time, date and place of the meeting is to be provided in accordance with such Act. 5. The charter commission is required to keep a record of its meetings, as well as any subcommittees. The record of all proceedings is subject to compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. The charter commission elected shall not remain in existence for more than two years after the date the charter commission is elected. 6. If a vacancy occurs in the office of the charter commissioner, it is filled by the charter commission. If the charter commission does not fill the vacancy within 7 days, the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners selects the person to fill the vacancy. The new charter commissioner must be a qualified voter from the same district and from the same party. IX. Charter Commission Personnel The charter commission may appoint employees and assistants as necessary to perform its duties and shall fix the compensation of the employees and assistants so appointed. The Board of Commissioners may authorize the use by the commission of the services of County departmental personnel. X. Appropriation and Expenses of Charter Commission All expenses of the charter commission are to be within an adequate appropriation provided by the Board of Commissioners. The County Board of Commissioners shall provide, if necessary, sufficient monies to defray the costs of suitable office and meeting space, materials, supplies, personnel, printing and distribution of documents, journals and records of proceedings, dissemination of information about the proposed charter, and all other expenses necessary to accomplish the uninterrupted and orderly completion of the duties of the commission. The appropriations shall include monies to defray the costs of elections and compensation to the members of the charter commission. Charter commission member shall receive compensation not to exceed $65 per day, for a total of 90 meetings. XI. Drafting of Proposed Charter While the charter commission’s main responsibility is drafting the charter, its powers are limited by statute, in that there are mandatory charter provisions, and permissible charter provisions. The charter commission is required to draft a proposed charter within 180 days after the date of completing its organizational meeting. If they have not agreed upon a proposed charter, the charter commission is dissolved. The charter is to be approved by a majority of the members elected to the commission. XII. Mandatory Charter Provisions 1. The charter shall provide for a salaried county executive elected at large on a partisan basis. The charter shall specify the county executive’s authority, duties and responsibilities.

72

2. The charter shall provide for the election of the legislative body known as the county board of commissioners. The term of office of the county board of commissioners shall be concurrent with that of state representatives, and their authority, duties, responsibilities, and number, which shall be not less than five nor more than twenty seven, shall be set forth in the charter. The county board will have the responsibility to provide by ordinance the amount of their compensation, and may increase or decrease their compensation. Such change in compensation, however, is not effective during a term of the office for which the legislative body making the change is elected. 3. The charter shall provide for the partisan election of members of the board of commissioners from single-member districts to be established by the county apportionment commission. 4. The charter shall provide for the partisan election of a sheriff, a prosecuting attorney, a county clerk, county treasurer and a register of deeds. The charter may provide for the authority of the county board of commissioners to combine the county clerk and register of deeds into one office. 5. The charter shall also provide for the continuation or discontinuance of county offices, boards, commissions and departments, whether established by law or by action of the county board of commissioners, and set forth the respective duties of the county offices, boards and commissions. 6. The charter shall not be in derogation of the powers and duties of the county road commission in the exercise of its statutory duties concerning the preservation of the county road system. The charter shall provide for a road commission consisting of not fewer than 3 or more than 5 members. Not less than 1 member shall be a resident of a township within the county. 7. The charter shall provide for the continuation and implementation of a system of pensions and retirement for county officers and employees. The charter shall recognize the accrued rights and benefits of the officers and employees of the system then in effect, and the charter shall not infringe upon nor be in derogation of those accrued rights and benefits. The charter, however, shall not preclude future modification of the system. 8. The charter shall provide for the continuation and implementation of the sheriff’s civil service system. The charter shall recognize the rights and status of persons under the civil service system then in effect and shall not infringe upon, nor be in derogation of, those rights and that status. The charter, however, shall not preclude future modification of the system. 9. The charter commission must recognize that the general statutes and local acts of the state regarding counties and county officers shall continue in effect, except to the extent that they are permitted by the County Charter Act to provide otherwise. 10. All ordinances of the county are to remain in effect, unless changed by the charter or by ordinance adopted under the charter. The charter shall recognize the power and authority to adopt, amend, or appeal any ordinance authorized by law or necessary to carry out any power, function or service authorized by Act 293 of 1966, (i.e. the Charter Counties Act) and by the charter.

73

11. The charter shall recognize the power and authority to enter into intergovernmental contracts not specifically prohibited by law. 12. The charter shall provide for the power and authority to join, establish or form with any other governmental unit an intergovernmental district or authority for the purpose of performing a public function or service which each is authorized to perform separately, and the performance of which is not prohibited by law. 13. The charter shall provide for debt limit not to exceed 10 percent of the state equalized value of the taxable property within the county. 14. The charter shall provide for the levying and collection of taxes, the fixing of an ad valorem property tax limitation not to exceed 1 percent of the state equalized value of the taxable property within the county, and that the levy of taxes from within this ad valorem and property tax limitation shall not exceed, unless otherwise approved by the electors, the tax rate in mills, equal to the number of mills allocated to the county, either a by county tax allocation board or by a separate tax limitation under the property tax limitation act in the year immediately preceding the year in which the county adopts the charter. 15. The charter shall provide for the initiative and referendum of all matters within the scope of the county’s power and authority and for the recall of all county officials. 16. The charter shall provide for the amendment or revision of the charter initiated either by an action of the legislative body of the county or by initiatary process. An amendment or revision to the charter shall not become effective unless an amendment or revision is submitted to the electorate of the county and approved by a majority of those voting. 17. The charter shall provide for the annual preparation, review, approval and adherence to a balanced budget in a manner which assures coordination among the county offices, boards, commissions and departments. 18. The charter shall provide for the annual audit by an independent certified public accountant of all county funds. 19. The charter shall provide that a county that incurs a budget deficit in any fiscal year shall prepare and submit a detailed and specific five-year plan for short term recovery and long range financial stability to the governor and legislature, before adoption of the next annual county budget, for review. The five-year plan shall include, but not be limited to, projection of annual revenues and expenditures, an employee classification and pay plan, a capital improvements budget, and equipment replacement schedules. XIII. Permissible Charter Provisions The county charter commission may also consider the adoption of provisions for inclusion in the charter which are deemed permissible. Among those provisions are:

74

1. Establish the office of corporation counsel, public defender, auditor general and all other offices, boards, commissions or departments necessary for the efficient operation of county government; 2. Provide for the power and authority to establish by ordinance other offices, boards, commissions and departments as may become necessary. 3. The legislative body of any unit of government which is wholly or partially within the county may transfer, subject to the approval of the board of commissioners and upon mutually-agreed conditions, any municipal function or service to the county, if the performance of that function or service by the county is not specifically prohibited by law, and if the function or service is offered on a county-wide basis. 4. The authority to perform, at the county level any function or service not prohibited by law, which shall include, by way of enumeration but not limitation: police protection, fire protection, planning, zoning, education, health, welfare, recreation, water, sewer, waste disposal, transportation, abatement of air and water pollution, civil defense and any other function or service necessary or beneficial to the public health, safety and general welfare of the county. 5. The establishment and maintenance, either within or outside the county corporate limits, of roads, parks, cemeteries, hospitals, medical facilities, airports, ports, jails, water supply and transmission facilities, sewage transmission and disposal systems, all public works or other types of facilities necessary to preserve and provide effectively for the public health, safety and general welfare of the county. 6. The power and authority to levy and collect any taxes, fees, rents, tolls or excises, the levy and collection of which is authorized by law. A tax on income may not be levied by the county unless authorized by law. 7. A system of retirement for county officers and employees, as well as a classified civil service or merit system, and for the election or appointment of the drain commissioner. XIV. Approval of Charter by Governor If the charter is approved by the charter commission, it is submitted to the governor for approval. The charter may be approved by the governor upon written confirmation by the attorney general. The governor can either approve or reject the charter within 30 days after it is submitted. If the charter is rejected, the charter commission must reconvene and revise the proposed charter and submit it to the governor within a period of 45 days. The governor again will either approve or reject the charter within 30 days of its resubmission. If the governor rejects the charter a second time, the commission, within 30 days, shall either reconvene and revise the charter to comply with the governor’s objections, or seek judicial interpretation to determine whether the charter conforms to the provisions of the constitution and statutes of the State. XV. Election Date for Submission of Charter to Voters

75

If the charter is approved by the governor, or upon a favorable judicial interpretation, the charter commission, within 10 days, shall fix the date for the submission of the proposed charter to the electorate. That election shall be at the next regular primary election occurring not less than 60 days from the adoption of the resolution. If there is not a regular primary election, the charter commission shall provide for a special election.3 XVI. Primary and General Elections for County Executive The resolution of the charter commission which fixes the date of the submission of the proposed charter also establishes the date for a primary and general election for the Office of County Executive. XVII. Term of Office for County Executive The County executive term of office runs concurrently with that of the governor XVIII. Miscellaneous Information 1. Number of Elections To adopt a county charter, there could be as many as seven elections and as few as five. The following is a general outline of how this process can be as few as five and as many as seven elections.

A. Five Elections

1. Election to submit the question of a charter commission to the electors, and at the same time conduct a primary election for charter commissioners (first election). 2. General election of charter commission members (second election). 3. Submission of the proposed charter for approval (third election). 4. Primary election for county executive (fourth election). 5. General election for county executive (fifth election).

B. Seven Elections84

1. Submission of the question of a charter commission to the electorate (first election).

84 Macomb County has completed the first of seven elections. The primary election for charter commission members will be held on August 5th, 2008.

76

2. Primary election for charter commission members (second election). 3. General election for charter commission members (third election). 4. Submission of the proposed charter for approval (fourth election). 5. If the first charter is defeated, a second charter can be submitted to the voters (fifth election). 6. Primary election for county executive (sixth election). 7. General election for county executive (seventh election).

2. Publication of Election to Establish Charter Commission Upon the Board of Commissioners passing a resolution to put the question of creating a charter commission before the voters, the county clerk is required within three (3) business days to send a certified copy of the resolution to the clerks of each city, village or township in the county. A notice of election of the proposition and office to be voted upon must be published in a newspaper having general circulation in the county. Also, a notice as described above must be posted in at least two (2) conspicuous places in each precinct in the county. Notes: MCL 168.641, which was adopted with an effective date of January 1, 2005 sets forth regular election dates in February, May, August and November of each year. In order to conform with that statute, the date of the election should be held in compliance with the requirements of that statute.